On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Not a liberal loonie wrote:
No right wing christian this country was founded to be free of
religion. The founders were well aware of the evil of a church
government. That why freedom of religion is important. He did address
the nonsense in your post. There is nothing to be afraid of, but your
stupidity is offensive.
Why is the truth so offensive to you? Truth I consider your
religious beliefs to be lame and stupid. Why do you find the truth
so hateful? After all if i were to lie and say I agreed with you, then
you would be happy. But the truth is offensive to you. And you love
lies,
You are incorrect on the basis of foundation for this great country.
Freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion.
You can't have freedom OF religion without the right to be free from
religions other than the one(s) you prefer.
The founding fathers did not want a state sponsored religion.
How do you know that?
-----------------
MYTH: The First Amendment's religion clauses were intended only to prevent
the establishment of a national church.
FACT: If all the framers wanted to do was ban a national church, they had
plenty of opportunities to state exactly that in the First Amendment. In
fact, an early draft of the First Amendment read in part, "The civil
rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief, nor shall
any national religion be established...." This draft was rejected.
Following extensive debate, the language found in the First Amendment
today was settled on.
The historical record indicates that the framers wanted the First
Amendment to ban not only establishment of a single church but also
"multiple establishments," that is, a system by which the government funds
many religions on an equal basis.
A good overview of the development of the language of the First Amendment
is found in scholar John M. Swomley's 1987 book Religious Liberty and the
Secular State. Swomley shows that during the House of Representatives'
debate on the language of the religion clauses, members specifically
rejected a version reading, "Congress shall make no law establishing any
particular denomination in preference to another...." The founders wanted
to bar all religious establishments; they left no room for
"non-preferentialism," the view touted by today's accommodationists that
government can aid religion as long as it assists all religions equally.
(The Senate likewise rejected three versions of the First Amendment that
would have permitted non-preferential support for religion.)
http://www.au.org/myths.htm
---------------------
That is why we enjoy the freedoms regarding
religion we can. Your ilk is trying to rid
the country of exercising such freedom.
On what dreams do you base that assessment?
You've succeeded in taking it out of our schools, in court houses and you're
working on taking away the ability to open up a bible on a park bench.
That's just wrong.
What is wrong--in error--is the suggestion that anyone is "working on
taking away the ability to open up a bible on a park bench."
If you have proof to back up your ridiculous claims, please provide it.
And I really don't care what you think of other's religious beliefs. I'm
not a church go'er myself, but it is a guaranteed right and that's what I'm
fighting for.
Everyone should be (and IS) able to make their own choices concerning
religion--whether to worship or not, where to worship, which religious
orgs to join, etc.
Besides, religion does indeed have some very outstanding
lessons and values to live life by.
Certainly.
It is also true that religion is responsible for some pretty heavy, awful
stuff.
Case in point: 9/11/01
.
